I don't care about the tweeting or the lying. There are plenty of politicians who lie to the public in worse ways than Weiner. The thing that gets to me is now I'm forced to assume that he is an idiot who doesn't know how the internet works. That's the only legitimate argument for his resignation. That being said, I hope he doesn't cave.

That is debatable. I do believe that it is stupid to do that on a person-to-person basis, because in one on one interactions it's easier to see that person with a more focused lens, to take in a person as whole. But context matters. In general "decorating your body with art" is an act of self disclosure inviting people to make aesthetic judgements about your appearance. The vast majority of people do not feel the need to permanently alter their bodies in ways as obvious as the woman pictured, leading the majority (who likely believe themselves to be normal) to question just what might be"off" or "wrong" with her that would cause her to do that to herself. If I were an employer trying to project stability and professionalism, or a neurotic/protective parent, I may want to avoid taking the chance on a person who felt compelled to "mutilate" their body.

How is a kid just out of high school who goes straight to college supposed to be aware of the consequences? Many of the people who are complaining about this type of thing are people whose middle class families sent them to college on easy to acquire school loans. I, as well as my family, were under the sole assumption that any college degree would get me a job. Why? Because that is how it used to work back in the day, and that was the info my non-college educated family had to go on. This is a common scenario and in it, who is supposed to tell you that it's not that simple in this day and age? The professor who teaches English or Philosophy? Of course not. They need you in their program. I had plenty of older people within the university administration tell me that employers look for the piece of paper, not the major printed on it. Misinformation plays a larger role than poor planning.

I'm still confused about why we don't have a Serial Killer Island that we can drop them off at, instead of either executing them or letting them live out the rest of their lives in prison. Potentially, everyone could be satisfied.

Well this discussion stemmed from the question of why people are upset with the enforcers for enforcing the law. The aren't supposed to, nor should they be able to, decide which laws to enforce. Whether they do their jobs or not is a question of corruption. Shit rolls downhill and it starts at the top with legislators.

Apparently I missed the pivot point where the unarmed, murdered kid became the bad guy, and the actions of a dipshit neighborhood watchman became defensible according to reddit. Did I miss some piece of evidence?

Politicians who's dishonesty is much more damaging to their constituents lie and get away with it (Jon Kyl) making it acceptable, while Weiner is destroyed for lying about his personal life. I can deal with someone wanting to protect their private business, because it's just that.

I did not say he was "too rich," like you are implying. I said "Mitt Romney being rich isn't a bad thing (although I would argue him being SO rich is indicative of different problem)" which means that he has acquired this massive amount of wealth through a broken system, which he is well within his rights to do.

But, him and people like him have used their wealth to break the system (via lobbying) and twist it further to their advantage, at the expense of poorer folks. I don't think I need to go into a "Bain Capital makes money from sucking the life out businesses and selling them" diatribe, as I think you are probably familiar with the story.

The American Dream is not "coming from wealth, and into more wealth." "Rocky" is the American Dream. An obscure guy works from nothing to become successful. Now imagine a parallel universe in which Rocky's parents were Muhammed Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. The latter is closer to Mitt Romney's story.

I think your question is the result of a false idea that gets spread amongst conservatives about how liberals think.

Mitt Romney being rich isn't a bad thing (although I would argue him being SO rich is indicative of different problem). No one dislikes him simply for being wealthy. The problem with him in relation to his wealth is that he had an advantage from the beginning of his life, but refuses to acknowledge it, and in turn ignores the fact that not everyone has had the same advantage he and people like him have had. Some people's families are poor and life is harder for them. Not acknowledging this makes him seem out of touch and patronizing.

The American Dream is much more modest than what Mitt Romney is living.